Wikipedia:Peer review/History of the Australian Capital Territory/archive1

History of the Australian Capital Territory

A relatively complete history of the Australian Capital Territory. Comments on structure and content would be appreciated.--nixie 00:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "19th century", nor "20th century", sections have any text. Content-wise, treat each section like its own article: give it a good introduction and discuss the subject (ie.19th century history of the ACT) with appropriate sub-headings if needed. The intro can include the themes of that century, the broad-based processes, the underlying causes, etc. Also, a map or two would be nice; where is Territory of Jervis Bay in relation to the ACT? --maclean25 01:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the point of adding a paragraph of descriptive text to the top level heading, its not done in History of Alaska or History of Poland (1945–1989) to pull out two examples, also repetition of information is not a particularly useful tool for an article of this length- the lead should provide the basic summary and I have incorporated the century headings into the text there. I have asked our resident Canberra map maker to develop the map, which I agree would be a good addition.--nixie 02:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alternatively, you can ask what is the purpose of having a section with no text? While it is not a rule (as far as I know) the use of sections with no text tell me, that either the article is formatted incorrectly (that is, it is using inconsistent or improper headings) or that the article is not complete (that is, it is not saying something that it wants to say). These history articles seem to be the latter. Indeed, they are very heavy on a historical narrative (this happened on this year, then this happened, and then this happened) but light on the analysis (why did that happen?). Visually, it looks incomplete, in that, it looks like a vandal blanked the section. I understand that length is the concern but history article, no matter what level of detail the article maintains, will be long and you still have a ways to go to match the lenghs of those articles you mentioned above. Why not remove the two shell sections and save a couple of lines in the article & TOC? The subsections can stand on their own as real sections. Also, a properly written introduction to a section does not repeat info, but rather provides an opportunty to put those narrative points into a perspective or context, and to ease the reader into the details. Consider this introduction - but please note that this was written using the article as its only source (I know little about Australia beyond what I just read and what I saw on the Simpsons.) --maclean25 11:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some quite good stuff here, I've made a few copyedits, and have a few other sidenotes:

To those unfamiliar with the geography, the significance of "finding a route to Jervis Bay" would be unclear (actually, it is a little unclear to me- was the route supposed to be from Sydney, or...?) Could do with some explanation to outline just where the Canberra region lies in relation to Sydney/the coast.
"When the limits of location were determined, the Limestone Plains district was within the boundaries for authorised settlement"- although the hyperlinked article further explains this, to the uninitiated this could be difficult to parse.
Should the 1926 and 1929 dates for Palmerville actually be 1826 and 1829?
Did Lambrigg really establish, or was he just one of the earliest active in, the wheat industry?
Would it be possible to enlarge upon why NSW was happy to cede that amount of territory near Yass, but not near Dalgety?
If the NCPDC's responsibility for development planning was replaced by the NCDC, does the statement "recommended the creation of a single planning body" make sense?

Overall is coming along nicely, tho'.--cjllw | TALK 08:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, I have tried to clarify all the points raised. One small problem, I can't find any reason why the NSW government was happy to hand over the Yass- Canberra region, I can only guess it is because it is marginally closer to Sydney.--nixie 10:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article is looking great. Minor concerns: William Farrer - agricultural scientist, agronomist or agrologist - do they all mean the same thing? The title "The search for a capital city location" Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) frowns on the word "The" in headings. Is the CDSCC a tracking station by built by NASA (please clarify that sentence)? The last paragraph of the "Government and the ACT" section seems to use the words 'decriminalised' and 'legalised' interchangebly, however they mean two different things (legalized=free-to-do-as-I-please, decriminalised=get-a-ticket-for-doing-it-but-no-criminal-record). Its not necessary but I would like to see a map at the top of the page of Australia and the ACT just to get the reader oriented in the beginning. Also, a map of the exploration routes or settlement patterns would be nice, if that is even feasible. --maclean25 01:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've followed up most of your points, the careful use of the in headings in not an issue and there is already a map showing the location of the ACT, it would be a waste of space to have two.--nixie 02:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]